March 28, 2006

Ins and Outs of Immigration

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill out of committee, sending it to the floor. Of course, under the arcane and byzantine rules of the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has the option either to send the committee's bill to the floor -- or his own bill, which differs wildly.

I hope he will not take that option, since it would enrage not only all the Democrats but enough of the Republicans that it would likely go down in flames, making Frist a laughingstock. (I don't dislike the guy enough to do that to my party.)

Another possibility is that Frist would move neither bill, first seeking agreement among the Republican caucus to a changed version of the J-Com bill that would include some of the harsher border-protection language of Frist's. In either case, whatever bill ends up going to the floor will first be amended; and then it must be reconciled with the bill from the House of Reps... and the differences between the House and Senate on immigration are just as stark as those between Frist's bill and the committee bill.

I should reveal my biases right up front (since I'm not a member of the Antique Media and never will be): I am both pro-immigration and also pro-border control. I have written about this many times before (for example, here and here). I truly and actually believe in the American ideal; but my ideological creed must be tempered by the forge of reality: we obviously cannot simply open the borders and let a firehose of immigration spray across. I try to keep at least two of my feet on the ground.

But those who insist we can just "seal the borders" and "deport all the illegals" are making the same ethereal, other-worldly mistake. It is not physically possible to round 'em up and ship 'em out; there are twelve million illegals here right now, for heaven's sake. Any immigration reform plan must come to grips with this 800-lb gorilla.

As odd as I feel saying it, the McCain-Kennedy bill is the only one to come out of either body that tries to find a solution to that King Kong of dilemmas, what to do with the 12,000,000. I don't particularly like Sen. John McCain (R-Gadfly) and I despise Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Margaritaville). But their bill at least makes an attempt to resolve that problem.

And strangely, it's also the closest to the bill President Bush proposed. At least the J-Com bill includes a guest-worker program with a path to citizenship -- and that is another huge point in its favor, since at the moment, there is no defined path to citizenship... and that is nine-tenths of the problem: since we don't make any provision to let even the most deserving come in the front door (it's entirely random -- when it isn't being race-based), those desperate for freedom come squirming in through the window.

What do you expect? Even the most decent people will take desperate measures to feed their families and let their children grow up in freedom, not tyranny.

According to the Times, the J-Com bill includes the following provisions:

Double the Border Patrol;

Make deportation of illegals easier;

Criminalize the building of tunnels across the border;

According to AP, it would "authorize a 'virtual wall' of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border;"

Associated Press again: it would "shelter humanitarian organizations from prosecution if they provide non-emergency assistance to illegal residents;"

Creates a temporary worker program, a la Bush's proposal;

Creates a path to citizenship: after six years fairly continuous employment in the temporary worker program, the immigrant can apply for permanent residency (what used to be called a "green card"). After five years here with a green card, they could apply to become American citizens;

Anybody currently residing here illegally could (it appears) apply to become a temporary worker, as above. He would first have to pay all back taxes, pay a civil fine for having entered illegally, pass a criminal background check, learn English, and so forth. He would not get a green card for six years, just like the temporary workers; and he would have to line up for citizenship behind those who entered here legally at the same time he snuck across the border.

Naturally, the anti-immigration crowd immediately dubbed that final provision as "amnesty." In fact, they dub anything short of lining up all the immigrants and mowing them down as "amnesty." The Times:

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said the Judiciary panel "let the American people down by passing out a blanket amnesty bill."

This is legislative DaDa-ism. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 simply offered instant green cards to every illegal living here since 1982. That is what a "blanket amnesty bill" looks like... and it looks nothing like this one. "Wolf! Wolf!"

Of course, if the nativists would condescend to join the debate -- with some suggestion more helpful and workable than mass internments, razor wire, a minefield, machine-gun emplacements, and half the Army stationed along each border -- they might actually be able to influence the provisions of the eventual bill.

For example, the current version does not require those living here illegally to return to their countries of origin before applying to become a temporary worker; perhaps it should. It would certainly make it clear that they weren't getting any kind of "amnesty."

Also, perhaps that "virtual wall" could be a real wall stretching at least part of the way across the border. But we still need the ability to separate those whose only crime is entering illegally -- but who would enter legally if we didn't make it so nearly impossible, and who would work responsibily to support themselves and their famlilies -- from those who are criminals in every sense of the word, coming here to commit robberies and murders, smuggle drugs, or blow up buildings. There are comparatively few of the latter, but they hide among the teeming masses of the former.

With a mechanism to legally admit those who just want to come here to work, the "wall" only needs to keep out the much smaller number of actual thugs and terrorists. But if we insist upon a wall to keep everybody out, it's doomed to failure: there is no wall so strong that it can't be knocked down by the hands of a million people pushing.

If we let the otherwise honest immigrants enter through the door during business hours, they can undergo criminal background checks, be fingerprinted and biometricized, and we can keep better track of them. And when honest folks can come in through the door in daylight, then the cops have greater license to use force against anyone trying to enter by night through a window.

So I'm bucking the trend here: I think this bill is a reasonable beginning; but it needs work. It's a little too immigration-friendly, but to call it "blanket amnesty" is both ludicrous and counterproductive. Better to amend the worst parts and expand the best, and actually get something workable.

The alternative is a complete Republican collapse, which will make it more likely that the next Congress will include Majority Leader Reid and Squeaker of the House Pelosi, and Judiciary Committees chaired by Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)... and just wait and see what the heck kind of a bill you get out of that lineup.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 28, 2006, at the time of 5:36 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/598

» Immigration Legislation from Ex-Donkey Blog
Dafydd at Big Lizards makes a compelling case for the current Immigration Reform bill that just cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee as a "reasonable beginning" that still "needs work". I agree with his sentiments:"I am both pro-immigration and also ... [Read More]

Tracked on March 28, 2006 7:11 AM

» My views on immigration from The Glittering Eye
One of the biggest news stories of today seems to be the immigration bill making its way through the Senate:
A key Senate panel broke with the House’s get-tough approach to illegal immigration yesterday and sent to the floor a broad revision of t... [Read More]

Tracked on March 28, 2006 11:57 AM

» My views on immigration from The Glittering Eye
One of the biggest news stories of today seems to be the immigration bill making its way through the Senate:
A key Senate panel broke with the House’s get-tough approach to illegal immigration yesterday and sent to the floor a broad revision of t... [Read More]

Tracked on March 28, 2006 11:57 AM

» Migrant Protectionism from Big Lizards
John HInderaker was kind enough to link our last post, Ins and Outs of Immigration, in his most recent piece on Power Line (my favorite blog, not even excepting Big Lizards). In that post, John professes perplexity about the best... [Read More]

Tracked on March 28, 2006 3:44 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: OCSteve

That is what a "blanket amnesty bill" looks like... and it looks nothing like this one."

I usually agree with you - not on this one though.

Amnesty is a general pardon for a group of people. The pardon is for crimes committed. These people have broken the law – they deserve to be punished. We can’t lock them all up so expulsion is the only reasonable alternative. If you pardon their crime then of course it is amnesty.

Should we take another category of people who have committed illegal acts but not been prosecuted and pardon them? How about burglars? Let’s see:
We know you committed burglaries. We have evidence but we have for whatever reason not yet arrested and prosecuted you.
If you register with us, make retribution for what you have stolen, pay a fine, and behave yourself for 6 years, then all is forgiven. You will never face punishment. Even better, we’ll give you some great benefit/privilege exactly as we give people who never committed a crime at all.

Yeah this is exaggerating – but not by much. A crime is a crime. You don’t pardon 12 million people because it is ‘too hard’ to make them pay the penalty.

All you have to do is make it a serious felony for any employer employing illegals – serious fines and prison time. Then enforce it ruthlessly. With no work – they will self deport.

Then start your guest worker program and continue on with real requirements for eventual citizenship.

The above hissed in response by: OCSteve at March 28, 2006 7:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: levi from queens

"You don’t pardon 12 million people because it is ‘too hard’ to make them pay the penalty." In American History, that has been done innumberable times. Think of the end of prohibition and the amnesty for Confederate veterans, to name two. In fact you have to do that. I thought Mr. Daffyd had an excellent analysis here.

The above hissed in response by: levi from queens at March 28, 2006 8:00 AM

I was going to say that I agree with you in every particular but then I read OCSteve's comment and I have changed my mind completely. We should never have repealed that 55 MPH speed national speed limit until we had caught and fined everyone who ever exceeded it... and, of course, executed Sammy Hagar for incitement.

I'd say more but I feel a posting coming on and I will come back and post a link later. After all, I have my own spot to hiss in.

"If you register with us, make retribution for what you have stolen, pay a fine, and behave yourself for 6 years, then all is forgiven"

That sounds rather like a probated sentence for someone who turned themself, in had no priors and commited no acts of violence during the burglary.

Not unknown.

I favour the return to country of origin and allow re=entry for those who have jobs, I also support felony status for anyone who does not do this and accessory charges for aiding and abetting. Automatic Deportation, permanent ban against re-entry.

“In American History, that has been done innumberable times. Think of the end of prohibition and the amnesty for Confederate veterans, to name two.”

One was a change to the constitution, the other the end of a war. Both involved American citizens. But I do get your point.

“We should never have repealed that 55 MPH speed national speed limit until we had caught and fined everyone who ever exceeded it”

I said I was exaggerating. But you are comparing a civil offense with a criminal offense. Illegals are guilty of a criminal offense, subject to up to 6 months imprisonment for the first offense and up to 2 years for each subsequent offense. That is right now, without increasing penalties.

Each such amnesty simply encourages more illegal immigration. I mean why not? What is the downside once they get here?

The above hissed in response by: OCSteve at March 28, 2006 8:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: Master Shake

Should not one of the provisions be that they must turn in their employers? They seem to be getting a free pass.

And how exactly can they pay back taxes? My assumption is that most of this work is "off the books", so there is no way to determine how much tax they should pay.

Can we also add reimbursement of any funds spent to give them free educational, medical, etc. benefits?

Yeah, things are all screwed up. Think of all the illegals who have US-born children for example.
But I don't think the worry about deporting millions is valid. A few high-profile cases where employers were hit with substantial fines or jail time (or even just charged) would dry up the job market noticeably and the problem solves itself. No need to directly target illegals. And so many of them are admirable people, in my experience, so why would you want to?
IMO, you would want the follow-up in place before you target employers (guest worker program, whatever), so that some transition could occur and reduce the inevitable misery that changes will bring.
Overall, I disagree with your position. It seems unfair that the people have to pay (medical costs, crime, burden on our kids' schools, lower wages, fewer low-skill jobs available, potential for terrorist access, ...) so that the elites can get their toilets swabbed without paying a living wage.
In the long run it is rarely good for a society when law breakers and exploiters prosper while the law abiding are penalized.

The above hissed in response by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA at March 28, 2006 9:58 AM

In response to my comparison of illegal immigration to exceeding the 55 mph federal speed limit OCSteve said:
I said I was exaggerating. But you are comparing a civil offense with a criminal offense. Illegals are guilty of a criminal offense, subject to up to 6 months imprisonment for the first offense and up to 2 years for each subsequent offense.

Yes, yes, you've got me there. For the first offense illegal immegration is a criminal misdemeanor and exceeding the speed limit is merely an "infraction"... unless of course you exceed the speed limit by more than five miles per hour at which point (depending on the local laws) it becomes a criminal misdemeanor.

Let's be clear here. Most Americans are not anti-immigration. You have adopted the meme of the dominent media by calling this anti-immigration. It isn't, it's anti-illegal immigration. The majority of Americans are against illegal aliens crossing the border at will, consuming our government services and then having the audacity to demand rights equivalent to Citizens. Bankrupting hospitals and public schools on the taxpayers isn't right or fair. I'm tired of people of your ilk always referring to illegal aliens as Immigrants. They aren't immigrants, they aren't even illegal immigrants, they are illegal aliens. Period.

all these articles, position papers etc are all big circle jerks. i’ve been reading these essays for thirty years. we all know the solution. we are just to pc to do it.

1. build a double wide 15 foot fence with razor wire down the middle. access road with line of sight cameras. thank you east germany.

2. after the fence is completed green cards for all illegals. 5-10 years to citizenship. any arrest, for even spitting on the sidewalk, and over the fence you go. no family members allowed to immigrate here during the green card period.

everybody will be happy that there won’t be very many gang bangers left in site. the police will be very happy that their arrests count. the new immigrants will be model residents or else and the current citizens will be forced to face today’s existing reality.

sure folks will be upset that breaking the law is being rewarded. so what. hey moronski, if you leave the border unattended people are going to cross it. let congress feel like they are doing something by shaking down the illegals for a one time citizenship fee. whatever.

all this other talk is just ‘jib jab’……….

and finally the best result—with no outlet for its people mexico will finally have the economic/social revolution its been avoiding for over a 100 years.

some further thoughts..........

without a fence there is no enforcement of any kind short of gestapo tactics against small business operators. when you find yourself in a hole stop digging. a complete fence stops the inflow. that is a must. after that you then face the reality of the 10/15 million illegals that are here–they are staying and they are becoming citizens. get over it. during that time frame if they break the law above a misdemeanor they are gone for being two time losers. the first time was when they broke the law coming here. the fence keeps them out permanently. now they just walk back in.

this is not a complicated issue. your common sense tells you that. occam’s razor………..

in an answer to racial bias.........

the fence has nothing to do with the war on terror or any such nonsense that its opponents want to attach to it. the "fence" sole purpose for existence is to secure the border from illegal immigration from primarily latin america. the fact that latin america is hispanic is strictly a coincidence. if canada was a third world country i would propose the same fence. for two hundred years we controlled immigration with quotas per immigrant group. i believe jimmy carter was the moron who changed this. the chief reason for quotas was for assimilation purposes--language, culture etc.... as stated earlier mexico encourages illegal immigration as an outlet so as to avoid the hard choices that it should be making to rectify a pathetic economic model it inherited from the spanish. there is a reason that english speaking colonies/nations have done better than spanish or french. every time you seduce a young hispanic to flee his country you further enslave the tens of millions they leave behind.

there are no good choices only hard choices. however we do know that good fences make good neighbors.

http://www.weneedafence.com/

in answer to today's enforcement debate...

go after the companies that employ the illegals? send the illegals back?

you are all dreaming. i have lived in california for 30 years.

thousands, and i mean thousands, of small businesses hire and use millions of illegals everyday. trust me, short of a new black booted gestapo, they are staying employed. any law passed to enforce some sort of penalty will never make it out of the court system. think prop 187 etc. so stop pulling your own chain thinking some legislation out of washington is going to change anything on the ground.

send them back? assuming you could get the authority to do it (this to will sit in the courts until we are the new new mexico) we have to have a fence from san diego to brownsville so that they don't just walk back in led by their favorite coyote for $3,000.

10-15 million well organized people-and they are very organized are staying--so get over it. part of the solution is to stop adding to the size of the group. we have to build a fence before we contemplate any other measures. don't listen to anyone that says fences don't work. they have other agendas they are not willing to discuss.

15 million illegals are easy to assimilate over twenty years or so--and guess what, despite the headlines, they want to be assimilated. but it can only work if no more are added to the mix......

again addressing the folks that are here....

you folks are starting to slip back into delusional space. the 15 million illegals are not going anywhere. we let them in and now they are here for good. there are no laws, past, current or in the future that are going to change that. no doubt there will be folks who get on soapboxes and pretend to write new legislation to solve the problem. the sooner we all act like adults and realists the sooner this diversive issue can be put behind us. do any of you actually think that the illegals are going to be rounded up and sent back to mexico etc? do you think funding is going to be cut to cities? you have to be kidding. the bong smoke is clouding your vision.

the absolute best that we can accomplish within current law is to build a fence so the problem doesn't get any bigger. a fence is cheaper and more efficient than salaried border patrols in the long run.

http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg

after that then we can deport the bad guys during a 5-10 years green card period on the way to their citizenship. that's right, their citizenship. 15 million people are not going to continue to live here as second class illegals forever without bringing the whole country down. why? because as certain as the sun comes up in the morning 15 million will be 30 million in 25 years. you need to get your arms around these kinds of numbers. we need to seal the border and make them citizens just like the irish, italians, germans, jews etc who came before them. the fact that they got here illegally is irrelevant. they are here, get over it.

the fence again...

apparently the simplicity of the fence is too complex for some to understand. a fence

http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg

of this kind is necessary so that any solutions proposed can be enacted. i personally recommend citizenship after a 5-10 year green card period. why? because as i have previously stated the 15 million illegals are not leaving and no amount of stupid legislation is going to change that. that's why i call anyone who thinks otherwise delusional. what will be possible is the deportation of all law breakers during the green card period--for whatever reasons--crime, IRS etc.... with the fence i mentioned, the folks would have no possibility of return. any children born during this time would not be automatic citizens. so if the parents were deported so would the children.

there are no good choices just hard ones. but again, to repeat, the illegals are not going anywhere. the protest march is just the beginning. 15 million organized people are not going to leave because you tell them to. you are right about the current legislation being proposed--they won't sign up as expected. why? because its just more BS. however they will sign up for a clear path to citizenship because, despite the flags you saw, that is what they want. they are no different than previous legal immigrants. if the irish etc could have walked across the border they would have. so stop pissing and moaning. the federal government and states left the border wide open and millions walked across it. duh!

i'll make a prediction. if a secure fence is not erected at this time we will have this cicrle jerk again in twenty years and the number then will be 30 million along with 25 million children who will be citizens. then the problem will be this

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4786/105/1600/Aztlan.jpg

not because of some dark conspiracy but because of differing birthrates. we need to start seeing the world as it is not as we hope it would be.

I don't happen to think that we have an immigration problem either legal or illegal but I do think that we have a problem controlling our southern border and doing that will de facto solve whatever problem the nativists are worrying about. However, I'm unsatisfied with the bills currently under consideration because they simply don't do enough to control the border.

We don't need another TSA arrangement whereby we appear to be doing something while actually not doing much of anything. No feel-good measures.

If we had the objective of eliminating illegal Mexican immigration (which I don't), we could do it easily enough. Ignore the push approaches that have been suggested. Reduce the pull mechanisms. If we make the cost of sending remittances back to Mexico high enough the problem will largely solve itself.

The only thing that will stop the flow is to make the green card (and a new national ID card for citizens) like a credit card for employment. Unless you swipe your card through a card reader (like a Visa card) and get a valid authorization code, then no job for you. If the card reader says your card is bogus or expired, then you're out of luck. And if the employer hires you anyway, without getting the proper authorization code by running your card, then it's a felony for the employer. The banquet is over. The party crashers can go home.

Just like to share a personal take that I bring to this debate. I am very strongly in favor of strict border control and a fence. At the same time, I recently became a sponsor for a close relative's wife, a Mexican woman in the U.S. for many years who is married to that relative (a natural born citizen) and has had three children by him, is despite being quite poor totally unwilling to live on charity, and is dedicated to as strict and moral a lifestyle as you'd ever hope to see. I find it odd that conservatives are willing to abstract her and categorize her simply as a lawbreaker and put her stay here in danger, yet for the most part are unwilling to do more than pay lipservice to the task of taking on the schools, the state, the universities and the media directly in a campaign against divisive multiculturalism and in favor of aggressive assimilation and the demand that immigrants make a commitment to this society. I agreed to become a sponsor on the condition my sponsoree read the Constitution and engage with me fully in a discussion of it. I am confident she is on the road to participation in this nation's life that will do us all some good.

I'm tired of people of your ilk always referring to illegal aliens as Immigrants. They aren't immigrants, they aren't even illegal immigrants, they are illegal aliens. Period.

If we had a rational immigration system, where responsible, honest, decent people were admitted to the country and a path to citizenship existed -- as we used to have many decades ago -- then you would have a good point.

Under those circumstances, there would be no legitimate reason for anyone to sneak into the country. But we have a different set of circumstances now; our so-called immigration system is arbitrary, random, race-based (Hispanics get a much better chance of permanent residency than, say, Japanese), cold and insulting... and this is for legal immigrants.

I didn't get into the story (because the post was long enough as it was), but my wife is a naturalized citizen. She had her green card for a long time; when she was trying to become a citizen, she jumped through all the hoops, checked off all the boxes, and finally got to the point where she was told she would be a citizen as soon as she took the oath.

But then they simply refused to set a date for her to take the oath. Weeks passed, months, and they wouldn't set a date, wouldn't tell her why, wouldn't tell he if there were any problem. Nothing.

Most of the people she talked to simply said they had no idea, she should just wait a few more weeks. But after those weeks, they told her the same thing.

It finally took a direct intervention from our then-congressman. It turns out the "problem" was that her file was sitting on somebody's desk, buried under a bunch of other papers that Mr. or Ms. Somebody also wasn't bothering to handle.

The reason they couldn't find it was -- they hadn't even bothered to look. It was nobody's responsibility to find it. Had it not been for our representative, she would still, six years later, be waiting for her bloody swearing-in ceremony... and would still not yet be a citizen.

But this isn't our only experience with the wonderful INS.

A few years ago, a friend of ours, who was here completely legally, lost his job because of a medical problem. Mind, he had been here for sixteen years trying to get a green card. During that time, he was totally legal, he was working, he owned a condo, he had health insurance, spoke perfect English, never committed any crime (it's possible he may have gotten a traffic ticket), everything that should have qualified him.

But because he couldn't get a green card (again, he never found out why), when he lost his job, he was simply told to get out. No discussion, no appeal: since his legal status was still tied to his job (as an accountant at a hotel), he was simply ordered back to Japan after sixteen years trying to become an American.

Toni, these are not exceptions; this is the norm. The immigration system here is not just broken, it's shattered. It's splintered. Effectively, there is no "system." There is no path a would-be immigrant can follow -- do this and this, don't do that, and you get your permanent residency.

In the total absence of any rational, coherent mechanism for immigrants to follow, there are no good choices; the only two bad choices are: 1) just accept that they will never get in and their kids will grow up in poverty and tyranny, or (2) sneak across the border.

For you to seize upon such situations and flatly label illegal immigrants nothing but criminals -- as if they were thieves, as if they just come here to suck up welfare -- tells me that you really don't have a lot of direct experience with the system.

Or else your only experience is from many decades ago, perhaps stories from your parents or grandparents, back when the system was actually set up to be rational... instead of chaotic and bureaucratic to the point of insanity.

Going through most of the conservative bloggers I finally found a voice of reason. Our current legal immigration system is broken, we need to look at increasing our skilled labor immigration and of setting our foreign students on the path to citizenship, especially advanced degrees in high tech areas. It is high skilled workers we are losing to competitors because of our insane immigration system that concerns me the most. Assimilation must also be high on the list of rational reforms. I think we need to scrap the current system and its bureaucracy and replace it with a new rational system that is economically sound, humane, and recognizes reality of immigrant and migrant populations. In reality some need seasonal guest worker cards, some need guest worker cards for 10 years and with an option to renew for another 10 years. Some should be on a fast track to citizenship like a foreign student with a masters degree in engineering. I agree with the original poster, this bill is a start and only a start. We can do better.

The above hissed in response by: maddog at March 28, 2006 1:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Re: maddog at March 28, 2006 01:56 PM

I agree that every math, science, and engineering PhD awarded to non-citizen students should come with an automatic green card, unless they're on a spy watch list, or terrorist watch list, or they have a criminal background. Don't make them go home when they don't want to.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN at March 28, 2006 2:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: maddog

Part of a rational immigration system would be background checks on any green card applicant. A someone pointed our already, if we open the spigot for legal entry we can throw out the ones would try to sneak in illegally or have questionable backgrounds (i.e. spies or terroists).

Often they are not supposed to get welfare but their children may be, and in many situations the kids are citizens.

We have a 4.8% unemployment rate and these people everyone wants to round up and ship over the border in cattle cars or something represent about 1 in 20 workers. The economy would be badly hurt if all those people were suddenly jerked out of the labor force.

I think this was a very good analysis. And these people are not all here to work for rich people either, many of them work in agriculture and do service jobs that the American people want them to do. If someone is on a fixed income and need a new roof or something, these kinds of workers are a lot more affordable than a regular contractor and they do a lot of work like that for people with
limited resources. More than people realize.

It took years for this situation to get this bad because the US did not enforce its own laws or police its border and we encouraged a lot of this kind of immigration for years for the sake of cheap labor. And now all these folks are treating these workers like they're serial killers or something. It is ridiculous.

BTW, 11 million people would be the entire populations of the states of Indiana, Oklahoma and Vermont. Not possible to just round them up and ship them out, and what about the children? Who will take care of them, will they lose their citizenship? How many people would you have to shoot? It is not as if these people appeared here overnight and forced Americans to hire them at gunpoint.

I would like to see a rational and workable solution rather than the chest pounding the ranting and raving for the sake of political grandstanding.

who broke the bigger law? the folks who risked life and limb to get here or the politicians/technocrats who failed to enforce the state and federal laws to protect and seal the borders? we need to get past this "illegal" designation. they are here and they are staying. no amount of convoluted gestapo, stalinist, nativist jib jab is going to change that. remember 15 million is really over 30 million when you throw in their supporters. start getting serious.
the idea that unemployed "illegals" are going to go home in numbers is ridiculous. the part you are not getting is this is their country now. millions of them already have their own small businesses.

crack down on the people that hire them? again you are just not getting it. you are cutting your nose off to spite your face. when i read the suggestions/solutions i feel like i'm with a group that is being held up at gun point and they are asking the perp if the gun is registered....lets try to get the weather vanes in washington to do at least one thing first--SEAL THE BORDER. after that we will work on the rest.

just remember this at all times--if you were them--young, poor and starving for a life-- you would have crossed the border also if it was left open. we caused this problem. we left the border open with a hugh 2000 mile long honey pot on the other side. i'm honest enough to admit i would have pushed you out of the way as i scrambled across!

Dafydd - I appreciate your response and do empathize with the disaster the US calls an immigration system. BUT, the lack of control of US borders doesn't legitimize illegal aliens pouring over the border. My point is more the dishonesty of many in calling the anger of many Americans as anger against immigration. It's the illegal aliens who are on the government dole. I personally don't care that they have children, they still shouldn't be receiving government assistance. My Dad and his parents immigrated to this country without government assistance and learned English immediately. They didn't speak Italian at home, they spoke English. I think it's pretty evident that a majority of these illegal aliens have no intention of assimilating into American culture. They don't learn English and their advocacy groups expect Spanish or Somalian translators or government documents to be in their language. I see story after story where a van of illegals are in an accident and all are released by the police, even when the driver has no license. It's frustrating to read about these stories. The fact that DHS can't deal with the situation today tells me that any type of Guest Worker/Amnesty program will be a total fiasco administratively and the situation will only worsen. Step one to me is secure the borders to stop the flow and go after employers. The current illegals will eventually go home or work to legalize themselves. If a Guest Worker program is needed, after the first two items are worked out then look at the Guest Worker issue. After listening to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday it's no wonder administrating immigration is a convoluted mess. It's no different than the income tax system, the exception is the rule. They've mucked the system up to the point it's ridiculous with exceptions.

It's the illegal aliens who are on the government dole. I personally don't care that they have children, they still shouldn't be receiving government assistance.

Isn't this a different issue, though? Are you saying you don't mind illegal immigrants who support themselves and their families?

If a Guest Worker program is needed, after the first two items are worked out then look at the Guest Worker issue.

I believe they have to be done all at the same time. If you try to build a wall to stop a million people from crossing, they will just knock it down. But you can certainly stop five or ten thousand; that's doable.

So as you're building the wall, you simultaneously have to segregate the people on the other side into two groups:

The great big group of people who just want to make a decent life for themselves and their families here;

And the teeny-tiny group -- which nevertheless causes nearly all the problems -- of people who just see a new herd of sheep to shear or a new batch of buildings to blow up.

" they are here and they are staying. no amount of convoluted gestapo, stalinist, nativist jib jab is going to change that"

Nice wanting to see that the Law is obeyed makes one a Stalinist.

Being part Cherokee, I don't find being called a nativist that insulting.

"Dan,

Often they are not supposed to get welfare but their children may be, and in many situations the kids are citizens."

That is something IMO that needs to change, skipping over the boarder to have a baby should NOT result in Citizenship.

Now it might be impossible to enact an Amendment to the Constitution defining a Citizen as the child of at least one parent who is an American Citizen, no matter where the birth occurred and of course as a result of the Naturalization process, but maybe Congress COULD enact a law that would declare the location of the delivery of an infant inside the boarders of the United States, and whose parents were not American citizens to be the temporary Consulate territory during the duration of the delivery of the Nation of origin of the mother, and therefore the child would not be born on US soil and not be a US citizen.

First, why are you so worried about your own ability to compete as an engineer? If you are, make yourself more attractive by getting advanced degrees, taking the professional engineering exam, developing more advanced engineering experience or management experience.

Your solution is to compete better -- not to artificially keep your competitors out of the market.

Second, a civil fine is not a tax. Not every payment to government is a tax; there are also user fees, criminal fines, civil fines, and actual purchases (such as buying land from the feds).

In this case, the "crime" of entering the country illegally is actually a misdemeanor... and a $2,000 fine for a misdemeanor -- especially one that you cannot prosecute because the statute of limitations has run out -- is a pretty substantial penalty.

It's likely more punishment than would be meted out, in reality, to the person were he caught just after illegally crossing. I don't know about you, but for me, I have never thought "vigorous enforcement of the law" was high on the liberal agenda.

Nor do the illegals get to cut in front of line; after admitting guilt and paying the fine, they must work continuously for six years before they can even get a Green Card (then another five before they can apply for citizenship).

Nor is it physically possible to arrest, detain, or deport 12,000,000 people... a population larger than all but the largest states.

This is not an amnesty. The only way for people to call this "amnesty" is to redefine the word into meaninglessness.

What are those people right now rioting for? They're not protesting in favor of McCain-Kennedy; they're (a) against the House bill, which is a non-starter in the Senate... and (b) they're yet again supporting the Aztlán movement, demanding the "restoration" of the entire American southwest to Mexico, which is why you see so of the protesters many waving Mexican flags.

That is the "liberal agenda." That is what these morons are marching in the streets and demanding. Not McCain-Kennedy -- Aztlán.

“Bankrupting hospitals and public schools on the taxpayers isn't right or fair. “

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am not a defender of illegal immigration. I think that the first step we should take is to defend our border with Mexico, whether by erecting a fence, with a virtual fence, with border guards every 100 feet or by whatever means. Last December, when Mexico’s President Fox called the proposal to build a border fence “shameful”, I told my Mexican (US Citizen) wife, “He’s right -- it’s shameful that Mexico has such a basket case of an economic system that millions of people want to leave.”

You apparently resent the fact that illegal immigrants can receive government benefits without paying taxes. Not true. Everyone pays Social Security tax on their wages (plus, the employer pays a matching amount). But illegal immigrants have no hope of collecting either disability or retirement benefits, because their wages are reported under false SS numbers. Thus, the Social Security tax dollars they pay go toward reducing the government deficit.

(The above doesn’t apply to “off the books” workers like nannies, gardeners and probably many other categories of workers. But businesses have to pay Social Security taxes in order to take an income tax deduction for the wages they pay. So anyone you see working in a local restaurant or hotel is very likely paying a payroll tax.)

Some illegal immigrants also have income tax withheld from their wages, and, because they do not file income tax returns, they can’t have the withheld taxes refunded. And even if they don’t have income taxes withheld, they can still end up worse off than legal residents, because they can’t apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives low income workers tax refunds even if they don’t owe any tax. The same applies to at least some states’ income taxes -- it definitely applies to my state.

But back to the specific cases you mentioned -- hospitals and public schools. There’s a lot of discussion lately about the large number of people without health insurance. Most of them are not illegal immigrants. Most are low wage workers employed by companies that either don’t offer health coverage, or that charge premiums employees don’t want to pay. All of these uninsured people, not just the illegal immigrants, contribute to the financial problems of our health system. It’s more a problem of low income levels than of immigration status.

Public schools are primarily funded by state and local taxes, plus some Federal funding (about which, see above). Illegal immigrants are subject to the same sales taxes as anyone else. And, while not many illegal immigrants own their own homes, they still pay real estate tax indirectly by paying rent to a landlord. In my state we recognize this fact by allowing tenants the same “property tax refund” that is available to homeowners. (Of course, illegal immigrants cannot apply for the refund.)

Bottom line: Illegal immigrants often pay more taxes than legal residents and they are entitled to less in return.

The above hissed in response by: Dick E at March 29, 2006 3:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E

Dafydd-

I’m not sure what a guest worker program accomplishes. I assume it would require employers to apply on the basis of need, i.e. there are no legal residents willing work for me for the wage I’m willing to pay. And if I can’t hire guest workers, I’ll go out of business, the jobs will go overseas, etc. The only businesses that should even be considered for sponsoring guest workers are those facing international competition. All the rest will face the same problem as their competitors, namely how can I get legal residents to work for me, or how can I automate my processes so that less low wage labor is needed.

I’m sure that some manufacturing and agriculture jobs would qualify for guest worker status, but a great many more employers would not. Hotel rooms and offices would still need cleaning, burgers would still need flipping and grass would still need cutting. Does anyone believe these jobs would go undone or be outsourced to India if the illegal immigrant population disappeared? These kinds of jobs definitely should not qualify for guest worker status.

If the guest worker program were administered honestly and on the basis of true need, we would still have a whole lot of illegal immigrants to deal with. What should we do with these folks? Ship them back where they came from? Throw them in jail? I know some who have posted on your site would like to adopt one or both of these strategies. That’s cold.

The illegal immigrants came here because of unfortunate government policies: Mexico and other countries can’t figure out how to get their economic houses in order. The US hasn’t enforced its immigration laws and has shown that, if you just wait long enough we’ll probably declare another amnesty.

Now that they are here, how can we treat people differently based on who they work for? The ones not fortunate enough to work for employers qualifying for guest worker status would have to be dealt with somehow. Sending all of them back home is inhumane, as well as impossible. Many of them have children or spouses who are citizens or legal residents. We allowed the problem to grow by not enforcing our immigration laws. The illegal immigrants acted illegally, but not irrationally, by coming here and staying here. They saw that, once they arrived in the US, they were pretty much home free; the worst that could happen was that they would be deported, and getting back into the US was not a problem.

I’m convinced that we should first protect our borders. (If we don’t, then all other strategies will fail. Not even forcing employers to enforce immigration laws will completely stem the tide. There will still be many employers willing to hire illegals “off the books”.) Then, if we succeed in reducing illegal immigration to a trickle, just let bygones be bygones. Don’t offer a fast track to citizenship. Don’t even offer legal status. And don’t ask employers to enforce immigration laws. Then, in a few years the problem will miraculously disappear. Some illegals will go back home, some will find other ways to legalize their status and, eventually, all of them (and all of us) will die.

I assume it would require employers to apply on the basis of need, i.e. there are no legal residents willing work for me for the wage I’m willing to pay.

I don't know the specifics of the bill -- they'll change anyway as it progresses through Congress -- but I sincerely hope it would not "require employers to apply on the basis of need."

It is the immigrant, not the potential employer, who must apply as the "guest worker;" and before coming here, how can he know where he will end up working?

Also, perhaps you didn't read my anecdote earlier, but I find it unconscionable that a legal immigrant can come here, work for years and years, learn English, buy a house, raise a family, pay taxes, stay out of trouble... and then the company he works for goes belly-up, and the INS -- whoops, sorry, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) -- comes along and orders him and his family out of the country on a month's notice.

Perhaps you think that's being "fair" to American workers, who were hungrily eyeing his job as an account at the New Otani Hotel. But I consider it a despicable betrayal of the American creed.

As to your idea that all we need do is "protect our borders," and "the problem [of those currently here illegally] will miraculously disappear," I can only presume you haven't adequately considered the subject of fecundity. Of course, this would be a de facto amnesty, since all those millions of kids would be natural-born American citizens.

But I would hope we could make shift to solve the problem by some means other than letting the entire current generation of illegals die in poverty, outside the law, and cut off from society, having raised their American-citizen children to think as well of the United States as the French-born children of Algerian immigrant parents think of France.

Of course immigrants would have to apply to be guest workers. And you’re right, when they apply, they might not know who their US employers will be. But guest workers couldn’t just get work permits and then walk down the street to get a job at the local Mickey D’s. Everyone admitted to the country under a guest worker program would have to have a specific job available to them before they are allowed to enter. (There might be contractors at the border to match employers with employees.) The only employers entitled to use guest workers would have to demonstrate a need for the workers -- they’d have to claim (prove?) that they can’t find enough US residents to work for them, and that employing guest workers won’t adversely affect employment of other legal residents. That’s the way the old bracero program worked. Can you imagine the hue and cry from the left if just any employer who wanted to lower their labor cost could legally hire immigrants? Ain’t gonna happen.

All of the above also applies to guest workers who are already in the country before they apply. The mechanics might differ, but you would still have to match guest workers to qualified employers.

By the way, just how does a guest worker program help our illegal immigrant problem? Unless new immigrants are excluded (not part of the proposals I have seen) we would just be adding more new immigrants at the bottom end of the wage scale. And the illegals who are already here won’t want to sign up for a program that will allow the government to track them and deport them after 6 years unless they pay a fine and back taxes (as is now being proposed).

Here’s a web site that lists a lot of other problems with guest worker programs:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty104.htm

The writer is very cynical and anti-Bush, but many of his questions are worth considering.

I agree that it seems like your friend who worked at the New Otani Hotel was treated shabbily, but, not knowing the details, I cannot comment. And I’m very sorry that your wife had such a hard time with her naturalization. That was really rotten. But sometimes things can work better. My wife’s naturalization was completed in less than a year. I guess we were just lucky.

Finally, I too “…would hope we could make shift to solve the problem by some means other than letting the entire current generation of illegals die in poverty, outside the law, and cut off from society….” So what do you propose?

(By the way, I think your comment about French-born children of Algerian immigrants is way off base. France does not have a history of being populated by immigrants, and the French are, to put it mildly, a bit xenophobic -- they don't treat immigrants -- or any other foreigners for that matter -- very well.)

Of course what I propose is a de facto amnesty. And of course those who remain here will have children. But, as you have said, “It is not physically possible to round 'em up and ship 'em out”. So what do we do with the 12 million illegals who are already here if we don’t physically extract them? All a guest worker program will do is sweep the problem under the rug by making some of them legal. I see no evidence that it will induce significant numbers to depart.

If there is a proposal that would encourage significant numbers of illegal immigrants to leave (without using Gestapo tactics), I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, how is anything currently on the table better than allowing those who came here while we were asleep at the wheel to remain, while rigorously policing our borders to see that the problem doesn’t recur?

But guest workers couldn’t just get work permits and then walk down the street to get a job at the local Mickey D’s. Everyone admitted to the country under a guest worker program would have to have a specific job available to them before they are allowed to enter.

In fact, the first sentence is exactly what I would like to see, and the second sentence is the failed policy we have right now.

I have no idea whether Congress will reform this aspect of work permits... but they should.

By the way, just how does a guest worker program help our illegal immigrant problem? Unless new immigrants are excluded (not part of the proposals I have seen) we would just be adding more new immigrants at the bottom end of the wage scale. And the illegals who are already here won’t want to sign up for a program that will allow the government to track them and deport them after 6 years unless they pay a fine and back taxes (as is now being proposed).

The bill contains a provision that says, since it will now be legal for aliens to work in the U.S. if they sign up with the program, any employer who fails to research the identification papers of any still-illegal alien who comes to work for him will be guilty of a crime (I'm not sure what level, but it's pretty serious).

In other words, once you have that open door, employers will be held criminally responsible if they continue to allow illegals to come in through the window.

That is what encourages current illegal aliens to register: they will find it very hard to get a job unless they do. Now, if you left them no choice, by shutting off jobs altogether, they would likely go totally underground: they simply cannot return to their country of origin because they cannot support their families there.

But if you leave them the option of legalizing, long though the process may be, they will take it...

Here is my analogy: if you simply dam up a river completely, allowing no gap for the water to escape, what will happen? Eventually, the lake you created will rise above the level of the dam, overtop it, and pour down the other side, probably taking the dam with it in a catastrophic flood.

But if you build a dam and include a spillway for the water, letting the pressure off in a controlled manner, then not only will your dam actually remain standing -- you can also harness the water for productive use.

It's the same with immigration. If you include no legal pathway for "illegal immigrants" to surface and become productive, legal residents, they won't head back to their original countries... no more than the water in the solid dam will flow back upriver again.

They will head into illegal industries, such as selling drugs or joining gangs; you've left them no choice.

But if you include a legal pathway and shut off all the illegal ones, they will flow down the path of least resistance -- and legalize themselves, like the water flowing through the spillway and powering the hydroelectric plant.

I repeat what I said above: "Can you imagine the hue and cry from the left if just any employer who wanted to lower their labor cost could legally hire immigrants?" "What you would like to see" is politically impossible, probably economically unwise, and it is not what is being proposed. In his 2004 State of the Union speech, the President said "I propose a new temporary worker program that will match willing foreign workers with willing American employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs." The State Department summarizes current and prior guest worker programs and proposals at:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/62664.pdf

See page 34 of this report. As far as I know, no one but you, Dafydd, has proposed qualifying guest workers but not employers.

And the fact that our current guest worker program is, in your view, a failure doesn't speak too well about the prospects of expanding it.

I still don't agree that as many immigrants and employers as you think will sign up for the guest worker program. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Meanwhile, you really should look at the web site I referred to before:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty104.htm

The guy is obnoxious, but many (not all) of his questions are very good. There are LOTS of unanswered questions about guest worker programs.

It really sounds like you might be in favor of another amnesty for the illegals who are already here. It certainly would be a lot cleaner and easier to manage than a guest worker program.

Frankly, an amnesty might be a reasonable answer, because, as you point out, the present system discourages illegals from going home, at least until they're sure they want to stay home. And I really don't think a guest worker program will be as effective as you hope in encouraging repatriation.

But before we would consider anything as drastic as an amnesty, or even something like a guest worker program, we simply MUST improve border security. It will never be perfect, but we've got to get to the point where significantly fewer illegals are willing to risk crossing the border.

(Yes, I know, I'm dreaming. "Amnesty", or anything people think is amnesty, is dead on arrival in Congress. Ain't gonna happen.)

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in,
.
Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Powerhouses

Milblogs

Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League blogroll will resume when BFL switches from BlogRolling to some other link-management site that does not trigger "malware" security alerts. We apologize for the inconvenience, but, well, you know.